I'm on break here, and I think I'll continue for awhile....
but the debate over Kerry statements on NPR pulled me back in.
So, forgive me my two cents.....
I'd like to say, first off that I am including the text of the Kerry interview on NPR below in the first comment box.
Second, there's been much impassioned rhetoric about this interview here on dKos...
obviously, when John Kerry was asked: would you support a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual union?
and he responded: Well, it depends entirely on the language of whether it permits civil union and partnership or not. This left a dissappointing impression with many, many of us, gay and straight alike.
I would point out that the most offending part of the exchange is the question itself: "marriage as a heterosexual union." I think John Kerry would have been wise to point this out, since the bulk of his response differs from the impression left by the sentence above.
Putting that quote and dissappointment aside for one second, what I'd like to do is try to translate his other comments into pragmatic terms..
and see if we can start a conversation about how we Democrats can debate this issue and yet stand strongly together right now during this election cycle
Simply put:
John Kerry, in this interview, stated that he is:
for civil union
for partnership rights
for equal protection under the Constitution, and that equal protection means the "rights that go with it"
he stated that he does not "personally support gay marriage" in the context of religion
and he reaffirmed that he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act because it was "gay bashing on the floor of the Senate"
To take Senator Kerry's quotes at their broadest and most obvious pragmatic meaning...
it appears John Kerry would consider a Constitutional amendment that met these criteria. ie. One that left the definition of "marriage" on the church half of the church/state divide and provided for a "state" definition of marriage, or "civil union", open to all of us, with equal rights and protections, in all 50 States.
In other words...the state can't tell a church how it can marry two people, but that no state would be able to deny two adults the right to enter into a civil union regardless of gender or whether they have been "married" in a church.
To my mind, there is a strong case to made for exactly this kind of ultimate outcome...
federally protected rights versus a patchwork of state laws...
let's make positive legislation versus the "leave it up to the courts" approach...
but also a real question as to whether an amendment that created this outcome would have a chance at passing. And, further, there is a real problem if language was put into this amendment along the lines of "marriage as a heterosexual union"; something I'm not sure Kerry would agree to given the bulk of his statement, and something I would oppose along with many here.
Regardless, this is the most favorable and sympathetic way to interpret Kerry's comments. And it has, I think, one critical component that we need to keep in mind as we debate this issue...
civil unions and full partnerships rights is an equal rights issue for EVERY American. Culturally, there is just a strong strand of thinking that runs...."two people should have the right to make a home the way they see fit."
In this context, I think this is an opportunity for us to stand together as Democrats, gay and straight, "married", "single" and "partnered" alike.
Certainly, if we are going to debate this issue at the convention...and it seems we will...under the national eye...
I would hope we would be able to do it with that kind of unity.